Anyone who really understands how storyboards are used, on a movie set or in animation, will dismiss Per Holmes’ assertions in his article “Why Storyboards Don’t Work” out of hand. But I am writing this today for the benefit of those who don’t yet have that real-world experience, and for my fellow artists: both 2D and 3D.

Please indulge me a little while I establish my credentials.

I’ve been doing digital previs for feature films since before most people knew what it was. I’ve been an advocate of digital media in preproduction for 15 years, and, along with a small handful of others, pioneered its use in feature film art departments. I spent four-and-a-half years at ILM as a vfx art director. I have previsualized camera moves, action and vfx for Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Roland Emmerich, Kathryn Bigelow, Steven Spielberg, Jonathan Mostow and quite a few others.

I started as a traditional sketch artist — I made the leap to digital in the early ‘90s, drawing directly into the computer with a Wacom tablet. I incorporated 3D in 1993, on Stargate. I have combined 2D and 3D in my work over the years in just about every conceivable way. Earlier this year, I wrapped directing duties on EA’s Godfather videogame cut-scenes, where, incidentally, we used a book of 2D boards three inches thick.

Storyboards and 3D animatics seem to serve the same function, superficially. But in reality they are two different, complementary tools with different places in the process of filmmaking. There is a place for each, and yes, sometimes they overlap. That’s fine.

As I’ve been reminded many times, filmmaking ain’t brain surgery — but like the surgeon’s scalpel, storyboards are there for that initial cut, to get you in and on your way. The animatic, like the medical laser, is a more complex instrument best suited for another stage of the operation.

On the surface of it, the 3D piece is closer to the final product, right? Isn’t that better?

Not always.

Storyboards are cheap and fast. Hand drawn storyboards excel at portraying things that are laborious for an animatic artist. Emotion and humor are essential tools for conveying a story, and animatics just don’t deliver.

Storyboards get to the heart of the matter — telling a story with sequential images, like film — right at the top of any production. Budget approvals, breakdowns, quick ideation, brainstorming, would be tough as hell without them. Those things can’t wait for 3D animatics, which are simply not as fast and flexible.

Picture me drawing storyboards while my director is pitching a brand-new sequence to producers in the next room. I’m delivering the pages as fast as I can draw them, some of them just in time.

“And the next shot is… oh, thanks, Peter… The next shot is,” (tacking it up on a wall), “this!”

Remember, Roland?

Try doing that with 3D animatics — I shudder. I can’t imagine any team doing a breakdown of a script or a vfx sequence without boards. I can’t say I’ve never done previs without them — almost never — but every time I have, I’ve had to scramble after the fact to create them so their function could be fulfilled.

You can look at a wall full of hand drawn boards and get the essence of a sequence, in seconds. Then linger here, then there, go back and study this frame or that — all much faster than you could play back an animatic — as fast as your eye can move. Think of it as random-access, non-linear mental editing. I’ve always maintained that you could tell how good a sequence was going to be by putting all the boards up on the wall, standing back and taking it in all at once, not thinking about it much but just letting it wash over you. 3D animatics must be played in real time to be useful. Without playback, they are just bad storyboards.

There are other, more ephemeral things about 2D storyboards that add value as well. There’s a lot of pleasure to be had in looking at good drawings. The relationship between a director and a good continuity artist is a special one, a collaboration that can spark creativity in an entire crew, with wide-reaching positive effects on the final product. And for the individual animator/director working on a private project, they are the very best way to get those first ideas out, shove them around, mold them, make them better, with no overhead and minimal effort.

Should I buy at any level Holmes’ argument that by using storyboards as a film’s initial creative grammar, you end up limiting choices?

I don’t think so. This is an issue for some live-action directors and dps — they believe it hampers their creativity. But Holmes’ theory is that storyboards are worse in this respect than 3D — and the opposite is actually the case. Many of these directors prefer to improvise on the set, and keep their options open. Of course, this is often a disaster for visual effects or action shots, and impossible in traditional animation. It’s more possible in CG features but also costly, and aggravating as hell for the animators. Often it’s preferable for this kind of director to use storyboards — and very loose ones — because tighter previsualization makes them feel tied down. The danger is that in having something so much closer in nature to an actual shot, it becomes authoritative too early. Animatics are seductive — and they can persuade, even when they’re not very good, because they look like a fait accompli. And keep in mind that this is not always about the director’s creativity — often it’s about producers who, the director fears, will hold him or her to an early decision, or one made by someone else.